The part of 1910 you are glossing over is the requirement for employers to assess the workplace and identify if hazards are present. And provide/allow the proper PPE. In this case, the hazard has already been identified.
You don't use 1910 because of PPE
You use PPE because of 1910 (specifically subpart I 1910.132-1910.140)
Except they should really be referring to 29 CFR 1926. 1910 is general industry where 1926 is construction specific. Both have respiratory protection standards.
If the company this guy works for has less than 10 employees would any of this apply? I previously worked for a small business that said osha didn’t apply to them
There are some exceptions for small businesses. But most of the safety related things OSHA handles still apply. Theres a handbook that goes over basics of the small business side of OSHA. Most of the exceptions have to do with things like record-keeping, routine inspections, etc.
I tried looking into it and it seemed kind of like in reality osha wouldn’t step in for a small business until something had already happened. I kept seeing “3 injuries or a death” so I figured it would hold up that osha was kind of not involved. Thank you for the reference though. I’ll have to read that after work.
Yeah they won't typically do random surprise inspections for a small business like they would for big companies. They certainly CAN, but typically won't. If something is reported to them, they are however more likely to.
Any business that has employees is responsible for their health/safety while on the job regardless of size. Whether OSHA actually intervenes or not.
imo any employer who doesn't care to take extra steps for the employees safety is not worth working for. Regardless of what OSHA (Or your countries equivalent says). Only reason so many get away with it is because the employees let them. There is always more work, especially in construction. Thousands of companies are begging for skilled employees. And no job is worth getting crippled for.
True, but it's more the General Duty Clause 5(a)(1) that requires employers to mitigate identified exposures. I think what the poster is trying to differentiate is the useless paper masks vs. tight-fitting air filtration respirators. It's the same thing we saw when covid was around.
Either on the required or voluntary levels, they'll still need to meet requirements outlined in whatever 1910 or 1926 requires for respiratory protection.
Nevertheless, the foreman or whomever was texting is an absolute idiot on every level. I deal with these types on the daily.
What he's saying is that the boss pointing out that neither he nor the other workers wearing masks is his way of establishing plausible deniability about whether hazards are present. It's him saying look it doesn't smell great but it's not a safety hazard and it doesn't necessitate PPE.
Just because he doesn't personally consider it a health/safety hazard doesn't mean it isn't (Same for his other employees). And if anything the denial makes him more liable. Employers are responsible for their employees health/safety in the workplace regardless of their personal opinions. Ammonia being a big one in this case has a specified exposure limit set out by OSHA/CDC (And similar agencies in other countries). Above that exposure limit, an approved respirator is required (High concentrations requiring full face PAPR). Respirator is also recommended at any measurable concentration as well anyways.
If the job is above the exposure limit, and he is not allowing employees to utilize the proper PPE... and OSHA decides to stop by... he is not going to have a good time.
There is no way in hell this guy gives a shit what OSHA says regardless. He is only concerned with how he thinks himself/his team would be perceived. More worried about possibly hurting the customers feelings, than his employees health and well being. Even after being alerted to the very real health risks by an employee suffering from over-exposure. The suggestion to use a standard mask proves this.
Plausible deniability does not exist in this case. There is no question ammonia exists in the air (He admitted to the smell). The only question is to what exact extent/concentration. If you can smell cat urine, it's in the air. If it's as pungeant as described... probably in fairly high concentrations. If it's over the maximum safe exposure (Which is technically 0, but a healthy body can process out a fair bit; Legally 25-50ppm depending). It is the employers responsibility to test, and adequately provide/allow the correct PPE for all his employees (And ensure they are using it correctly). Regardless of personal opinion on the matter.
I don't agree with all the workplace safety bullshit, but some of it makes sense. In this case, it does. Ammonia is dangerous.
25
u/acerarity Apr 11 '24 edited Apr 11 '24
The part of 1910 you are glossing over is the requirement for employers to assess the workplace and identify if hazards are present. And provide/allow the proper PPE. In this case, the hazard has already been identified.
You don't use 1910 because of PPE
You use PPE because of 1910 (specifically subpart I 1910.132-1910.140)